Antitrust: U.S. Supreme Court Affirms FTC Jurisdiction but Vacates Scope of Analysis on CDA Policy

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-198
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Zakhary
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Antitrust Analysis ◽  
Business Financing ◽  
The U.S

In California Dental Association v. FTC, 119 S. Ct. 1604 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a nonprofit affiliation of dentists violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (1998), which prohibits unfair competition. The Court examined two issues: (1) the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) jurisdiction over the California Dental Association (CDA); and (2) the proper scope of antitrust analysis. The Court unanimously held that CDA was subject to FTC's jurisdiction, but split 5-4 in its finding that the district court's use of abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis was inappropriate.CDA is a voluntary, nonprofit association of local dental societies. It boasts approximately 19,000 members, who constitute roughly threequarters of the dentists practicing in California. Although a nonprofit, CDA includes for-profit subsidiaries that financially benefit CDA members. CDA gives its members access to insurance and business financing, and lobbies and litigates on their behalf. Members also benefit from CDA marketing and public relations campaigns.

Constitutional Issues in Cross-Gender Searches and Visual Observation of Nude Inmates by Opposite-Sex Officers: A Battle Between and Within the Sexes

1995 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
KATHERINE BENNETT
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Body Cavity ◽  
Visual Observation ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Opposite Sex ◽  
Competing Interest ◽  
The U.S

Prison litigation concerning the issues of cross-gender searches and visual observation of nude inmates in prisons and jails by opposite-sex officers involves alleged violations of several constitutional rights. Additionally, claims of two competing interest groups, prison employees and inmates, are in conflict. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley established standards for reviewing alleged violations of inmates' constitutional rights, a ruling that clarified issues somewhat. However, the recent Ninth Circuit case of Jordan v. Gardner (1993) rejected Turner standards and inserted a twist in the direction courts were taking. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 may further complicate the three issues of incidental observation of unclothed inmates by opposite-sex officers, cross-gender routine strip searches/body cavity searches, and cross-gender pat searches/clothed body searches.

The Justiciability of Paraguay’s Claim of Treaty Violation

1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 697-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori Fisler Damrosch
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Government’s position asserting nonjusticiability of the treaty claims raised by Paraguay in the domestic and international lawsuits is disturbing. The Government’s amicus filings at the court of appeals and the Supreme Court denied that Paraguay’s claims belonged in federal court (or indeed in any court at all); at die International Court of Justice, the United States admitted a treaty violation but denied the competence of that tribunal to enter a judicial remedy. At one or another phase of these proceedings, the U.S. Government pressed a variety of arguments that (if accepted) would rule out virtually any judicial consideration of a treaty-based claim. The haste with which the Supreme Court denied a stay in Breard’s case foreclosed adequate consideration of the justiciability of such claims in domestic courts and also effectively barred Paraguay from achieving the relief it sought on the international plane.

Under the Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 98 (7) ◽  
pp. 76-77
Author(s):  
Julie Underwood
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
K 12 ◽  
The U.S

How would the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (presuming he is confirmed by the U.S. Congress) affect the court’s dynamics, its ideological balance, and specifically its decisions on cases that bear upon K-12 education? Is he likely to be another Justice Antonin Scalia, will he be less conservative, or will he be more so? The author looks for clues in the opinions Gorsuch has written for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Making the Case for Night Work Legislation in Progressive Era New York, 1911-1915

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Thomas McGuire
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Progressive Era ◽  
Night Work ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
The U.S

In 1907 the New York Court of Appeals considered a bindery company's challenge to a night work law passed by New York's legislature in 1898 and amended in 1903. The statute stated that “no female shall be employed, permitted, or suffered to work in any factory in this state before six o'clock in the morning, or after nine o'clock in the evening of any day.” The outcome of the case was preordained, for New York's highest court was famous for advocating the legal “freedom of contract” principle, which negated state efforts to limit workers' hours. From 1878 through 1904 the Court of Appeals had held that any restriction on laborers' hours was unconstitutional. The only exception, Lochner v. New York, had been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court on appeal.

scholarly journals United States v. Lozoya

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Daeja Pemberton
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Constitution protects one’s right to a fair trial in a proper venue. Typically, venue is proper in whatever territorial jurisdiction a defendant commits an offense. But this rule is not as clear-cut when the offense takes place in a special jurisdiction, such as American airspace. A court must then determine whether the offense continued into the venue of arrival, making it proper under the Constitution. This issue was reexamined when Monique Lozoya assaulted another passenger on an airplane during a domestic flight. In United States v. Lozoya, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to correctly identify the assault as a “continuing offense” and in doing so risked harming the criminal procedure process for prosecutors and offenders alike.

scholarly journals Constitutional Aspects of Physician-Assisted Suicide After Lee v. Oregon

1997 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-96
Author(s):  
Simon M. Canick
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Bodily Integrity ◽  
Equal Protection Clause ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Ill Adults ◽  
The U.S

Dying is personal. And it is profound. For many, the thought of an ignoble end, steeped in decay, is abhorrent. A quiet, proud death, bodily integrity intact, is a matter of extreme consequence.—Justice William BrennanTwo recent circuit court decisions have reinvigorated the debate over the constitutional, practical and ethical ramifications of physician-assisted suicide. In Compassion in Dying v. Washington, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a liberty interest exists in choosing the time and manner of one’s death. The court found this right to outweigh all asserted state interests, and concluded that, with respect to competent, terminally ill adults, Washington’s prohibition of assisted suicide violates the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling effectively strikes down laws against assisted suicide in all of the states in the Ninth Circuit.In April 1996, in Quill v. Vacco, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that New York’s prohibition of assisted suicide violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document